The judgment of $91,075, which will be appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, came on one of two breach-of-contract suits pending against Byrne from the 1983 campaign, the other being a claim for $48,206 from her advertising consultant, Mary Elizabeth Pitz of Lincoln Park.

James H. Wolf, Byrne`s attorney, said the ruling does not bode well for politicians who run short of money. Byrne`s personal income from television, a book contract and interest-bearing sources can be garnished to collect the judgment, he said.

``I have never heard of a ruling like this holding the candidate personally liable instead of their campaign fund,`` Wolf said. ``This means that if a campaign worker goes out and incurs a bill, the candidate is liable even if she doesn`t personally approve the bills.``

Byrne has charged that the suits by Progress and Pitz were instigated by former Ald. Edward Vrdolyak, Byrne`s longtime political rival.

Stanley Gapshis, 76, chairman of Progress, said Porter`s ruling was

``like winning an election. I`ve been in this business for 60 years and done work for more than 2,000 candidates of the Democratic Party, and this is the first time I`ve had to resort to a lawsuit.

``I`ve had problems with minor candidates who were short of money, but I worked with them and they eventually paid the bills. I tried to work with Byrne on the bills, too, but when somebody tries to give you the shaft.

``Nowadays, I don`t deal on credit with politicians. I get the money up front because it is getting harder and harder to collect from them.``

Timothy B. Newitt, attorney for Progress, said the money was due on 57 orders placed with his client in January and February before the primary, and that many of the orders were placed by Pitz, while lower-level workers made the other orders. Newitt said he will file garnishment proceedings if Byrne fails to pay the judgment.

Newitt called Pitz to testify and produced purchase orders, samples and delivery receipts to show that the orders were made and delivered without objection, whether the order was submitted in writing or done verbally.

Informed of the verdict, Pitz said that ``justice was done. Jane Byrne incurred all of those debts,`` Pitz said.

She also labeled as ``categorically untrue`` the charge that her suit and testimony were instigated by Vrdolyak.